On the existence of branchiae in the young Caeciliae, and on a modification and extension of the branchial classification of the Amphibia / by John Hogg.

John Hogg

Date:: [1841]

Credit: On the existence of branchiae in the young Caeciliae, and on a modification and extension of the branchial classification of the Amphibia / by John Hogg. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

6/13 page 358

$previous classification, which is, to separate the Toads from the Frogs [Ranidce), and to place them, as Prof. Bell has done, in another family, EufonidcB'^ \ one of the chief distinctions of the latter being the absence of teeth. Next, the late discovery of a very remai’kable and anoma- lous animal renders an extension of my proposed classification very necessary;—the animal which I mean is m hat Fitzingerf and NattererJ denominate “ Lepidosiren,” and consider as forming a new genus of the fish-like Amphibians, whilst Prof. Owen § regards it, with another species, as being more neai’ly allied to the Fishes. And I may remark that the L. paradoxa, a native of the marshes near the Amazon, in South America, where it is named Caramuru, is extremely like the Siren in general character and form; whilst the L. annectens, which inhabits the river Gambia in Africa, more resembles in its shape the Siredon pisciformis, or Axolotl of Mexico. It is also used for food by the inhabitants of that part of Africa, as the Axolotl frequently is by the Mexicans. Now the presence of distinct lungs in both these animals makes me at once dissent from the opinion of the latter author, and decides with me the question—whether they are to be esteemed as true Amphibians, or true Fishes} Yet Prof. Owen has resolved this question in favour of their being Fishes, principally from their nose; which consists ot two membi’anous sacs, plicated within, opening externally on the upper lip, but (according to his observation) without coin- municating with the fauces or mouth jj. The other ichthyic * History of British Reptiles, p. 105. f Froriep’s Notizen, vol. i. p. 90 ; and Wiegmann’s Archiv, 1837, i>. 233. t Lcpidosiren paradoxa, eine neiie Gattung, aus der Faniilie der Fisch- ahnlicheii Reptilian, von Johann Natterer, Annalen des Wiener Museums der Naturgeschichte, 1837, vol. ii. p. 1C5. § Description of the Lcpidosiren annectens, Linn. Frans., vol. xviii. P- i^27. II M. Milne Edwards, in his paper ‘ On the Natural Affinities of the Lejn- dosiren' in the Ann. des Sci. Nat. for September 18'10, writes as follows ; “ One of the reasons upon which Mr. Owen most insists for placing the Lc- jiidosiren amongst fish, is the want of communication between the nasal ca- vity and the mouth ; but M. Bischoff asserts, that in the species which he dissected there exist hinder-nostrils (jirriere-narincs) opening into the cavity of the mouth near to the commissure of the lips. I also saw these postenor openings of the nasal cavity in the L. paradoxa dissected by M. Bibron, and their abnormal position appears to be in part explained by the absence of superior maxillary bones.” This ])aper, a translation of which was given in the ‘ Annals and Mag. Nat. Ilist.' for P'cbruary 1811, p. 467, I had not seen until some time after mine was written and in the editors hands. I must here point out that Mr. Owen made his dissection ol the L. annectens, while MM. Bischoff and Bibron examined the L. paradoxa.$